Sam Bennett wrote:
You're not making a like-to-like comparison here since the 7D and MFT sensor are not constructed in the same fashion. Nikon and Canon have better capabilities to design and produce sensors and the subsystems that go with them. It's not all about pixel pitch and density - it's the underlying technology. Panasonic and Olympus will have to get really serious about high ISO quality and invest a lot of money to compete with the big boys here - but I suspect they'll always be a step or two behind.
Actually this is not the case, Panasonic has desgn and production capabilities similar to Canon or Sony and which dwarf Nikon (most Nikon sensors are Sony designs modified to Nikon's spec). The primary issue with the Panasonic sensors is that the m43 sensors are a less mature product than Canon's or Sony's sensors and it does show, but they've been closing the gap with every revision and are catching up, just like Sony did.
The other thing is that it's pretty clear that the biggest issue for the m43 cameras is not immature sensors but immature processing engines. Venus HD in particular is simply not there yet for high ISO work. The Oly TruPic V engine is better (and is quite possibly the best JPEG engine on the market) but must give up some low ISO IQ to getthe high ISO performance.
ISO1600 wrote:
i do not hate M4/3 just because it is what it is.... if they addressed a lot of the problems, it could be much better, and be a good stopgap between PnS and FF DSLR/DRF.
Until then, i'd rather shoot film, or scribble things on napkins.
MFT IS a stopgap between P&S and FF. It's nearly the equal to the best APS-C cameras in almost every respect except AF speed and buffer capacity, but it's considerably smaller... nearly as small as a P&S camera, in fact. If that's not a stopgap, what is?
Face it, you have to make some compromises to make a smaller system like this. MFT is always going to be a step behind the best FF DSLRs, just like APS-C is. Lets say today's MFT cameras were the equal of the 5D, for the sake of argument... well, now there's a 5DMk2 which eclipses MFT again. In a year or two Olympus makes the EP-3, which equals the 5DMk2. By then Canon will have announced the 5DMk3 which pulls ahead yet again. And when that day comes, the same people will be here in a thread much like this one complaining that the EP-3 isn't good enough for their uses, because the 5DMk3 is better. The same people who claim the 5DMk2 is the quality floor today, and the 5D the quality floor two years ago.
Funny how yesterday's cameras are suddenly unusable when a new camera is released, isn't it?
Bottom line, there's no way you're going to beat a sensor 4x as large in IQ. But there's no way you're going to beat a sensor 4x as small in size and cost, either. The operative question is, are you willing to leave a FF DSLR at home to bring a smaller camera along? Are you willing to give up IQ for package size? I am... I always took my E-410 on vacation and left my 5D at home. You're obviously not willing to make that compromise.
TR3B wrote:
Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that I have a Canon 400mm f/2.8L II that hasn't worked out so well for street shooting. Anybody need a bazooka for their MFT set-up. Might be kinda off balance and awkward though, especially held out at arms length.
Maybe too jittery? Ya think!
Plus you wouldn't be able to focus it (manually or otherwise) without a electrical connection to the camera.
mawz wrote:
Actually this is not the case, Panasonic has desgn and production capabilities similar to Canon or Sony and which dwarf Nikon (most Nikon sensors are Sony designs modified to Nikon's spec). The primary issue with the Panasonic sensors is that the m43 sensors are a less mature product than Canon's or Sony's sensors and it does show, but they've been closing the gap with every revision and are catching up, just like Sony did.
You seem to be saying the same thing I said in a different way. Panasonic obviously has the capability to design and produce sensors and their subsystems, but at this point the sensors in MFT cameras do not represent the state of the art. It is debatable whether they could produce a 7D-like results at all, even if they wanted to. Not just at the sensor tech level, but the whole imaging pipeline - all the ingredients that go into have a high quality RAW or JPEG file at the end of the day.
Readily quantifiable drawbacks like sensor size or lack of OVF seem more troubling on paper than in practice. The thing that I love about these cameras is the size and inconspicuousness. Its hard to underestimate how quantitatively modest decreases in weight or size can influence a user. Similarly, it is difficult to overstate how a photographers act of bringing a camera to the eye disrupts ones surroundings.
My micro 4/3 camera is the one I have with me all the time, and when I stare at that screen to compose my shot, I look like every other harmless tourist sporting a point-and-shoot. I recognize that my SLRs are capable of giving me the higher quality image, better high ISO performance, and shallower DoF. But they also tend to intimidate human subjects, and weigh me down to the point that I am unlikely to carry them with me. They attract attention everywhere I go, whereas my Olympus PEN is inconspicuous in both size and manner of use.
While it might be nice to have an APS-C or 35mm sensor in a camera this size, I hardly think that the sensor is holding it back. Ive taken some high ISO images that I am quite pleased with using this system; I am also a big fan of in-body-IS.
I got my MFT camera in December and was impressed. I started to leave my 5D at home quite often and thought that everything was great, but already some of the excitement is wearing off. I don't want it to happen because I love the smaller size and light weight. It's not about sharpness or noise, because those things don't worry me much. Close-ups look great, but somehow many of the other types of photos (even those taken in good light) look a bit flat and lackluster. Has this happened to anyone else, that you have lost the positive feelings you had in the beginning?
I've got a E-P1 and it comes with me everywhere! At first I thought it might have been to big to fit into a pocket, but I can manage to fit it with the 17mm and viewfinder into my pocket with no problems. I'm now shooting daily, rather then once or twice a week when I previously had to find the time to get out and shoot, now everything and everywhere I go is a photo opportunity! I'm pretty impressed with the out of camera Jpeg quality from the E-P1 too!
My only regret is I didn't buy the E-P2 instead since I'm finding that I'm using the 17mm and optical viewfinder combo most of the time since I don't really like using the rear LCD to frame and would like the EVF. I might get a E-P2 when the prices come down a bit later this year or see what Panasonic or even Samsung have to offer.
HelenaN wrote:
I got my MFT camera in December and was impressed. I started to leave my 5D at home quite often and thought that everything was great, but already some of the excitement is wearing off. I don't want it to happen because I love the smaller size and light weight. It's not about sharpness or noise, because those things don't worry me much. Close-ups look great, but somehow many of the other types of photos (even those taken in good light) look a bit flat and lackluster. Has this happened to anyone else, that you have lost the positive feelings you had in the beginning? ...Show more →
Yeah, that happened to me too. Then I ditched the kit zoom (the Panny 14-45) which was good but dull. I'm getting more zing by using adapted lenses which don't rely on distortion correction and deliver somewhat more interesting rendering.
mawz wrote:
Yeah, that happened to me too. Then I ditched the kit zoom (the Panny 14-45) which was good but dull. I'm getting more zing by using adapted lenses which don't rely on distortion correction and deliver somewhat more interesting rendering.
That sounds like good advice! I'll look into it.
Landscape and portrait type of shots are what I have the most problems with now. Details with the 20/1.7 look great, almost 5D like, but as soon as there's some distance I find that the photos often get a "digital" look, slightly gritty and overly contrasty.
What made me really start thinking about this was something that happened yesterday. First at a general DSLR forum I saw a photo that I thought looked fine, but somewhat gritty. I thought to myself "it's good to see that even real DSLRs give that look sometimes - my G1 isn't much worse than that". Then I scrolled down and found that that particular photo was from a MFT camera!
Later I was browsing a MFT forum and saw some landscapes and thought "those look great, like my 5D shots, glad the MFT too can produce that look in the right hands". Then I scrolled down and found that those were example photos from a FF DSLR...
Maybe I have to accept that there's a reason to why I moved to a FF camera in the first place, and that MFT isn't for me. Perhaps I should instead look into some really small lenses for the 5D, for example the new pancakes from Voigtlander.
HelenaN wrote:
Landscape and portrait type of shots are what I have the most problems with now. Details with the 20/1.7 look great, almost 5D like, but as soon as there's some distance I find that the photos often get a "digital" look, slightly gritty and overly contrasty.
(...)
Maybe I have to accept that there's a reason to why I moved to a FF camera in the first place, and that MFT isn't for me. Perhaps I should instead look into some really small lenses for the 5D, for example the new pancakes from Voigtlander.
Sorry for the rambling...
I think this is partly about expectations and partly about the Panasonic sensors. Not only are they smaller, they also have a sort of blotchy noise in the shadows that isn't very pleasing to the eyes (my ones, at least).
But, the current µ4/3 cameras aren't that bad. Here is a sort of landscape and I was pleased with the end result:
The image is a stitch from two exposures but they are cropped and I could have had nearly the same from a vertical shot. G1, Zuiko OM50/2 Macro, ISO400.
In the shadows there is the typical Panny color noise, supressed in the small image above, making it unsuitable for very large prints. I am however not at all sure my now sold 5DMkII would have done a lot better (at ISO1600 for shutter speed and DOF).
I'm very much looking forward to coming cameras, be they µ4/3, Samsung or finally some other brand with a larger sensor. Meanwhile I enjoy the G1 and a three lens setup all conveniently carried in a junior satchel bag.
I'd agree MFT (and Four Thirds before it) definitely have a different "look" than the 5D. My APS-C cameras share that look. I definitely prefer the look of FF, but I've found over the years with Four Thirds that if you keep the ISO down and play with the contrast curve a bit you can get very 5D-like results. It's when you start to seriously push the shadows and highlights at moderate to high ISO that the "digital look" starts to assert itself.
I'll keep my MFT gear (G1, 20/1.7 and 14-45) and continue with my plans to sell 450D/XSI and a couple of older Canon lenses. I'll still have 5D and my favorite lenses for serious shooting. When I'm out with the G1 I will try and change my state of mind and don't demand too much from it.
(I want to add that even though I'm picky about certain things I'm no pixel peeper. This isn't about sharpness.)
EDIT: I forgot to say that I love the Dynamic B&W mode. In that mode the grittiness really works. Even if I'd only use the G1 for B&W it would be worth keeping it.
Interesting thread for sure! I am somewhat of an 'expert' on using both mFT, FT and FF, simply because I have this problem where I love to buy and sell gear and use different equipment and I'm always trying to find the best combo's for hiking / mountaineering / kids / landscapes / dogs / flowers...!!
Over the years I've used a lot of different cameras and the obvious statement that the best camera is the one you have with you, is true! Some of my best shots were with a Sigma DP1 because it was so small and handy to have along
It always comes down to the compromises you want to make. I used the Olympus E410/420 for about a year ( which is a long time for me to use one camera!! ) and after some disappointing results (DR issues) on the most gorgeous days I've ever had in the mountains I decided I was going FF - no matter what! I bought a Canon 5D and after taking it out ONCE, decided it was a great camera but way too heavy for me. I kept it for shots of the kids but wasn't happy lugging it around.
Since then I've tried everything from Ricoh P&S to Sigma DP1 to Panasonic G1 / Olympus EP1 to Nikon D90. Other than the Ricoh, I've been pretty happy with my results but the camera that stayed in my hiking bag was the Panasonic GH1. I've been using it longer than any other camera I've ever owned now (over a year) and I can't justify getting rid of it. I recently bought into a Sony FF system for the amazing lenses and more formal landscapes but I can't get rid of the GH1. The HD video is stunning, the 14-140mm OIS (28-280 equiv) lens is amazing and the pictures aren't too shabby either. The fact that I can carry it around my neck for 10 hours of hiking / climbing means I get shots while the FF guys are fumbling around with packs and lenses.
I recently stitched and printed out a panorama at 2'x4' from this past summer and it looks great! When you can print that big I think you've reached all you need from a camera. Using GND's helps with the small sensor DR issues for me.
Does this mean I'm done searching? Heck no! I want a GF2 with swivel LCD, more DR, HD video, optional EVF and a lens with the IQ of the 14-140 but maybe a bit less range and wider, 12-60mm f/4 OIS would be perfect!
Here's the shot that is on my wall (different crop, same scene):
Nice and entertaining post Vern , and that landscape photo is gorgeous! It's hard to look at it objectively now when I know that you used the GH1, but I think you could easily have fooled me into thinking that you used a FF camera.
I think part of my problem is that in my mind I have decided that 5D is much better and therefore am prejudiced when I look at my photos from G1. There's no question that 5D is better, but I think I judge G1 harder and sometimes see the photos as worse than they are.
Two days ago I took some photos in town with G1. Afterwards I felt that "5D would have done that much better", so today I re-took some of the shots with 5D + 35L. I expected the results to blow G1 + 20/1.7 away, but the difference is in most cases minor (the light was good - in bad light the difference would have been more obvious).
I think the key for me to be happy with G1 is to never compare with 5D, to avoid bringing both to the same shoot, and to find out what its strong and weak points are and use it accordingly.
HelenaN wrote:
I think the key for me to be happy with G1 is to never compare with 5D,
Bingo. This is the crux of my problem. I simply cannot stop myself from making that comparison. I have tried several bodies (including a 4/3rds body) over the past 3 years of 5D ownership and I have ended up selling them all.
cogitech wrote:
Bingo. This is the crux of my problem. I simply cannot stop myself from making that comparison. I have tried several bodies (including a 4/3rds body) over the past 3 years of 5D ownership and I have ended up selling them all.
Hmm... That doesn't sound very promising (for me)... I'll give the G1 a fair chance though. Fortunately I bought it used, so if I end up selling it the money loss should be minimal.
Either way I think I'll look into some really small/light lenses for 5D. The new Voigtländer pancakes seem pretty good and should be a nice light kit if I can do without AF. We'll see.
The only thing the 5D thing has going for it is image quality. The GF1 is actually snappier in terms of shooting performance. I can understand why people like the 5D so much, but personally I couldn't stand its plodding, pedestrian shooting performance.
Sam Bennett wrote:
The only thing the 5D thing has going for it is image quality. The GF1 is actually snappier in terms of shooting performance. I can understand why people like the 5D so much, but personally I couldn't stand its plodding, pedestrian shooting performance.
You must have had a different kind of 5D than I have.
Plodding? C'mon. My 10D is plodding. My 5D is easily fast enough to keep up to fast-paced event/wedding shooting. Review time is fast, emptying the buffer is fast. Everything is fast...
Please tell me what is so slow on the 5D, because I have missed it over the past 3 years.
I don't want it to happen because I love the smaller size and light weight. It's not about sharpness or noise, because those things don't worry me much. Close-ups look great, but somehow many of the other types of photos (even those taken in good light) look a bit flat and lackluster. Has this happened to anyone else, that you have lost the positive feelings you had in the beginning? 
